I don't see what this has to do with the font not being displayed?
As to the quotes it's better to have them around font names that consist of more than one words.
And as to the font being only partly displayed I haven't seen such a behavior too. Could we probably see the entire code or a link to the page? What about other fonts (like if you use standard fonts)? Would they be displayed entirely?

you browser using is safari...just use ie
Another thing is you should have cookie enabled
If not, everything displays stupid

And that's the most stupid advice I've seen in a while.

no name

02-01-2007, 10:43 AM

I use Firefox and IE on my Windows machine but Safari on my Mac. Most Mac people use Safari so I wanted to get this code to work if possible.

Bill Posters

02-01-2007, 10:46 AM

remove the quotes

I don't think that would be likely to work. Compound font names - those which contain spaces - should be contained within quotes to ensure maximum compatibility.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#font-family

In this case, it may be that Safari recognises the font under a slightly different name. (I once experienced a similar problem with Opera vs. all other browsers.)
See how the name appears in the font menu of other Mac apps.

Safari is pickier about its fonts than other browsers. It might be that certain font-styles you are using aren't supported in the font (like bold or italics)—some browsers will display a "faux" version of an unsupported style, and some won't. As far as I know, rather than display the faux style, Safari will substitute the style of the next font down. Also, notice that computers can recognize font names differently; i.e., a PC might recognize "Kristen ITC" while a Mac might only recognize "ITC Kristen Book" or the like—same font, different name.

Unless it's a globally available font (Verdana, Arial, etc.) I'd recommend using images and one of any image-replacement techniques, or something like SIFR.

Hope this helps…

no name

02-01-2007, 09:16 PM

Right....

Firstly, thanks to everyone who's tried to help me on this issue - it's much appreciated.

For those who are interested here's the (unsatisfactory) answer!
rmedek's is right. The font (in this case Curlz MT) on the Mac doesn't display if the text is bold or italic. I changed the code of an H5 heading that I noticed was displaying in Helvetica rather than Curlz and made it display 'normal' instead of the default 'bold'. The text then displayed in Curlz.

So there you are - more 'unusual' fonts are a waste of time on Safari if they're HTML. I'm just going to let it display in Helvetica on the Mac!!!

rmedek

02-01-2007, 09:25 PM

more 'unusual' fonts are a waste of time on Safari if they're HTML.

Actually, they're a waste of time, period. Fonts in HTML are only displayed if they're installed and active on the person's computer, regardless what browser or OS they're using. For example, I have Curlz installed but not activated, so I'll always see Helvetica, italic, Safari, or no. A PC without Curlz installed will never see Curlz.

If you want to use more unusual fonts, it's really best to use images or a dynamic font replacement method like SIFR.

Arbitrator

02-01-2007, 10:20 PM

don't joke.
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/4044/screenshot010tn9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/3575/screenshot015wi9.th.jpg (http://img490.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot015wi9.jpg)Just because something works doesn’t mean that you should do it. The good practice method (using quotation marks) doesn’t cause any compatibility problems or require much effort, so there’s no reason not to use it.

Actually, they're a waste of time, period. Fonts in HTML are only displayed if they're installed and active on the person's computer, regardless what browser or OS they're using. …

If you want to use more unusual fonts, it's really best to use images or a dynamic font replacement method like SIFR.This is why you’re allowed to list fonts so that the user agent (browser) can sift through the list until it finds one that it can display. In the worst case, none of the named fonts will be used and the author‐chosen generic font keyword at the end of the list will determine the font the browser chooses (serif, sans-serif, monospace, fantasy, cursive). Unless the font is absolutely required for the purpose, like on this page (http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/ts/japanese/shape.html) comparing different fonts, or the designer is going to commit suicide if their font doesn’t get used, it should be fine just using the list.

rmedek

02-01-2007, 10:41 PM

This is why you’re allowed to list fonts so that the user agent (browser) can sift through the list until it finds one that it can display.

Right, but why compromise the design of the website? If the overall look and feel is relying on the feel of the navigation, I wouldn't leave that up to chance.

Looking at the example site shown, the navigation in Helvetica makes it look like one of those generic domain placeholder search sites. Helvetica is a poor substitution for Curlz, don't you think? :eek:

Arbitrator

02-01-2007, 11:28 PM

Right, but why compromise the design of the website? If the overall look and feel is relying on the feel of the navigation, I wouldn't leave that up to chance.

Looking at the example site shown, the navigation in Helvetica makes it look like one of those generic domain placeholder search sites. Helvetica is a poor substitution for Curlz MT, don't you think? :eek:I guess it’s a matter of opinion then. Personally, I think it looks just fine with a sans‐serif font. I looked at it with Kristen ITC, Curlz MT, and Verdana and they all looked fine, though Curlz MT looked the worst IMO due to readability. I couldn’t view it with Helvetica since I don’t have that font. I’d say that, even with the correct fonts, it looks like a placeholder site though because it is: there is no content yet.

You can use images, but then if you want to change the text, you have to edit an image, your site is slower and uses more bandwidth, and you sacrifice the ability to zoom the text size, at least, in Firefox and Internet Explorer 6. Then again, that site isn’t accessible to text‐resizing, either way, by the looks of the overlapping I’m seeing.

Anyway, the first two listed fonts are cursive in style, so it might be more appropriate (for the design) to use cursive font fall‐backs, instead of sans‐serif fall‐backs. Example:

font: "Kristen ITC", "Curlz MT", cursive;

The font that would usually be substituted if the cursive keyword was the fall‐back is Comic Sans MS, which looks fine from here. Of course, the fall‐backs are also an aspect of the design, so maybe sans‐serif font fall‐backs are fine (according to the designer).